Hypocrisy at Berkeley Journalism School's "China Digital News"

Censorship is a frequent theme on China Digital News (CDN), a blog run by faculty and students of the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. With its mission to "advance the understanding of the ongoing information revolution in China," CDN regularly reports on the continual conflict between the Communist Party's efforts to control information, and the initiatives of intellectuals, journalists and others to promote the "opening up" of information and debate.

Also of interest at CDN are stories of Western people or institutions charged with supporting the government's efforts to control information. Several recent items, for example, have addressed the controversy arising from Google's policy of excluding government-banned sites from search results.

Last June, CDN reproduced a lengthy essay from the UCLA Asia Institute's "AsiaMedia" information service. The author, a Westerner writing under the pseudonym Ann Condi, expresses self-loathing for playing along in a phony "frank, open, no-holds-barred exchange" on a CCTV (Chinese TV channel) talk show with high-ranking Party officials:

The audience, me included, was overall well-behaved, cooperative and uncontroversial, like a class of obedient uniformed Chinese middle school students.

Ironically, the one and only pointed barb of the evening was provided by a native Chinese man.... At last! A word of truth, a sentiment that spoke what was in everyone's minds. It was a comment that should have been said by one of us foreigners, and yet a Chinese had said it. This gentleman's question gave me and everyone there a moment of moral clarity, and made me feel that I, too, should open my mouth. But I didn't. I sat there glumly realizing that this was why the world had so few Nelson Mandelas and so many cautious compromisers. The more I realized how small my risk in speaking out would be, the more I realized my reasons for remaining silent were just an excuse. I could not muster the courage to shatter the atmosphere of respectful civility. I left the studio that night disgusted with myself and profoundly troubled.

I wish I could say that the above was an isolated incident, but it is not. To a greater or lesser extent, the type of queasy dynamic described above is a fact of life for me and for just about any foreigner living here. And it is especially common for those of us who work for or interact with the Chinese media in some way. For the control mechanism now exerts itself in increasingly subtle and unpredictable ways. More often an annoyance than a danger, it seeps into everyday consciousness and becomes an acceptable part of life, like aging and traffic jams. One can almost forget at times that the restrictions are there. While there are obviously countless cases where information is explicitly pruned, oftentimes the process is so reflexive and automatic that the term "censorship" almost no longer applies.

But whether consciously felt or not, the shackles are quite real. Which brings me back to the uncomfortable point I must confront: Chinese media workers routinely acquiesce to the wishes of the shadowy figures in power because their careers depend on it; what choice do they have? But we foreigners do have a choice. How can I justify my occasional participation in TV shows, especially knowing full well that at times my foreign status is in part being used toward some political end?

[Excerpt slightly edited for brevity.]

This pseudononymous essay is one of the most thoughtful and insightful ruminations on press control and its effects in China that I have seen.

As any inquiring person will ask when in China, Why is it that so many people who speak so voluably in private about political issues so often acquiesce when it comes to making more public political utterances? One cannot but conclude that fear of the formal apparatus of censorship - even such extreme measures as detention - accounts incompletely for the way in which most people are unoffended by untruth and yet still remain silent. Certainly such implicit threats create a climate in which people shrink back from challenging untruthfulness. But, there is also, I believe, a deeper level of very strong but subtle psychological inhibition operating within Chinese society that plays an important role making most people shy away from the risks of such exposure.

Simply put, Chinese and foreigners alike are made to feel that it is some how undecorous, embarrassing, and unduly negative (and certainly not a good career move) to speak "truth to power," as Vaclav Havel put it. Few like to be singled out as "trouble-makers," even if the cost is yielding to untruthfulness.

This syndrome may have something to do with the low-esteem in which political ideas, discussion and dissent are held in China today where the reining currency of the realm is commerce and wealth.

In any event, how the whole system of avoidance holds together is one that Condi seeks to address, and does it with great thoughtfulness.

The really interesting unanswered question is this: Does truthfulness matter? Are there long term consequences for China and the growth of a healthy society in having so many people succumb passively to so much untruth?

Posted by: Orville Schell at June 27, 2004 03:12 PM

There is another Westerner in China who is also seen on CCTV. But he does not write under a pseudonym, and he does not seem to suffer the pangs afflicting Ann Condi:

My god, man, almost all of the Chinese people I work with and spend free time with are Party members, including at least one-fourth of my students. It is not terribly difficult for me to report what they say about issues important to them. I also do a great deal of political commentary for CCTV 9 International, where I am on panels with highly placed government and academic officials from whom I learn a great deal.

That is Joe Bosco, a political blogger in China, explaining (via email) the basis for his insights into the Communist Party's thinking, a topic on which he is given to making energetic pronouncements.

Bosco is also a professor. But his employer is not a run-of-the-mill university, and he does not teach ordinary students:

[M]y students are not just "students," they are handpicked to go into government service by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and spend four years immersed in world politics with many of the world's leaders and shakers coming to the China Foreign Affairs University to lecture them on many different world views....

[Excerpt from Bosco post to another China blog.]

It happens that I myself taught at the same China Foreign Affairs University for 10 weeks in 2002, a year before Bosco. While there I witnessed striking levels of craziness and hysteria -- and I wrote Inside China's Diplomacy School, a highly detailed account of my observations.

I first heard of Bosco when he posted a lengthy comment about my story to the Peking Duck blog, where the story was being discussed. Strewn amidst a great number of epithets Bosco's comment directed against myself was the unequivocal statement: "I can assert with authority, and direct sources, that his story is flat-out lunacy and paranoid fabrications."

Though taken aback by this attack from someone I'd never had contact with, I was eager to challenge it. My story is in fact scrupulously true. But shortly after I posted my response, the Peking Duck proprietor deleted the entire discussion, saying he was doing so at Bosco's behest. It turned out that he was, by coincidence, a close friend of Bosco's.

When reference to the matter appeared on Simon World, a popular China blog over which Bosco has no control, I posted a new comment:

[N]owhere [has] Bosco questioned the accuracy of even one specific item from the mountain of detailed observations I present to readers.

Bosco's comments have made clear that his relations to the school authorities, his access to Communist Party officials, his regular appearances on Chinese TV, are near and dear to his heart. The man is conflicted.... His siding with corrupt and secretive Chinese officialdom against a Westerner who has been thoroughly open is a betrayal not only of fundamental American principles. It also betrays idealistic Chinese students and others who somehow admire the U.S. and its people as embodying the spirit of open debate.

[Excerpted from http://simonworld.mu.nu/archives/044838.php.]

Shortly after my Bosco experience, a new entry appeared on CDN noting an essay by Jiao Guobiao, a professor at Peking University. CDN quoted the essay's conclusion:

If the news control should be opened up and the news media are allowed to function as public opinion watchdogs, a single newspaper will be more effective than one thousand courts of law in guaranteeing social justice, an unbridled People's Daily will be more effective in fighting corruption than one thousand central disciplinary committees, and an independent Central Television is more effective at exposing corruption than ten thousand national audits.

"If the news control should be opened up, a single newspaper will be more effective than one thousand courts of law in guaranteeing social justice."

While Chinese journalists face censure, job loss and worse in reporting news, some Americans in China betray the cause of Chinese progress by seeking to discredit and suppress information about official abuses. Why? To curry favor with the authorities and with their employers.

Example: Joe Bosco, who recently persuaded the Peking Duck blog to expunge criticisms of the prestigious China Foreign Affairs University where Bosco was teaching.

The school treated him with "professionalism, warmth and kindness," said Bosco. "Debate would not be productive and could cause unnecessary harm."

On Bosco's own site, ironically, he gives himself credit for advancing First Amendment freedoms in the U.S.

Details: Joe Bosco, Blogger

From: Xiao Qiang
To: Uriel Wittenberg
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 1:18 AM
Subject: Your comment to CDN

Dear Uriel,

We have received your comment on China Digital News. I'm just writing to let you know that CDN now uses a comment approval system, primarily to guard against spam, which became a severe problem in maintaining the site. However, we have decided not to post your comment because we want to keep the discussion limited to the issues and views relevant to posted articles or other China-related topics. We do not feel comfortable posting comments that contain personal disputes with other bloggers, in which CDN is not involved.

I hope you can understand our position.

All best,
Xiao

Xiao Qiang
Director, Berkeley China Internet Project
Graduate School of Journalism
University of California, Berkeley

I then wrote to Dean Schell:

From: Uriel Wittenberg
To: Orville Schell
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 3:13 PM
Subject: CDN: Shunning American blogger participation in China news suppression

Dear Dean Schell,

Joe Bosco, an American journalist and politically oriented blogger in China, has done something discreditable. On discovering negative information on the Peking Duck blog about his employer, the China Foreign Affairs University, Bosco attempted to falsely discredit the information, publicly stating: "I can assert with authority, and direct sources, that [the] story is flat-out lunacy and paranoid fabrications." When a response ensued defending the information, the Peking Duck proprietor, Richard Burger, deleted the entire discussion together with the original information, suggesting he was doing so at Bosco's behest.

Joe Bosco is a public figure and commentator on China affairs. His blog has been referenced by CDN. He performs, in his own words, "a great deal of political commentary for CCTV 9 International, where I am on panels with highly placed government and academic officials." His writings make much of his position as "professor" at elite universities.

His false repudiation of criticisms of a prestigious Chinese institution with which he is affiliated is therefore news. So is Peking Duck's suppression of the criticisms. Adding piquancy to this news are Bosco's boasts on his website about having risked jail to promote First Amendment freedoms in the U.S.

But CDN does not want to touch it.

I am the source of the negative information about CFAU (I taught there for 10 weeks in 2002). After the deletion of the information at Peking Duck, I wrote a light-hearted but factual essay about the affair (at [Joe Bosco, Blogger]). On seeing the August 29 post at CDN entitled, "Jiao Guobiao: How To Open Up News Control In China," I attempted to post a brief comment referring to Jiao Guobiao's sentiment that removing censorship would promote social justice. It did not seem irrelevant to point out that some Americans seen on CCTV also participate in positive measures to effectively suppress information critical of Chinese officialdom.

CDN has a mechanism for holding comments for approval. Xiao Qiang later emailed to say: "we have decided not to post your comment because we want to keep the discussion limited to the issues and views relevant to posted articles or other China-related topics." He has refused any further discussion or comment.

As I pointed out in my reply to Xiao Qiang, CDN's stated mission is "to advance the understanding of the ongoing information revolution in China." Refusing to permit reference to the participation by American bloggers and journalists in actively suppressing information critical of Chinese authorities certainly seems inconsistent with CDN's mission.

I would appreciate your response via email.

Sincerely,

Uriel Wittenberg

From: Ana Nunes Silvestri
To: Uriel Wittenberg
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Shunning American blogger participation in China news suppression

Dear Mr. Wittenberg,

Thank you for this submission. This matter will be looked into internally.

Cheers, Ana

Bosco is connected with CDN. Bosco's opinion about how China would respond to a declaration of independence by Taiwan was cited in a July entry written by Xiao Qiang; Bosco has occasionally posted comments on CDN; and Bosco's blog ("The LongBow Papers") together with Peking Duck represent two of the 20 external blogs listed on CDN's main webpage. LongBow Papers and Peking Duck, in turn, make regular reference to CDN.

Bosco also has a personal connection with Schell, as Bosco has mentioned on his blog:

... the University of California, Berkeley, Journalism Department (whose Chairman, Orville Schell, an old China hand and wonderful journalist, was my wife Ellen's neighbor and friend for years in Marin County--a shameless plug for my lovely wife (Crackpot Chronicles [Ellen Sander's own blog])--and Orville, whom I greatly admire ).

I won't pretend to know what mixture of craven calculations has led CDN and Schell to, in Schell's words, be "unoffended by untruth and yet still remain silent." But the breach of principles involved here is surely obvious enough to be understood by any reflective person, let alone a journalist:

• CDN declares itself to be a "public forum" and appears to be one -- but is not. The undeclared use of a prior screening mechanism for comments, and the use of that mechanism to screen out comments that are fully within CDN's Posting Guidelines, is dishonest. (See CDN self-description & Posting Guidelines.)

• News control and suppression in China are central preoccupations at CDN. Yet Bosco, a CDN source, has actively sought to falsely discredit and suppress inside revelations about the China Foreign Affairs University, a significant Chinese government institution.

• Bosco's personal conflict of interest in the matter is obvious. (See also Joe Bosco, Blogger.)

• Bosco has fled from accountability for his charges. He or his friends have censored discussion in forums they control, while steering clear of forums they cannot control.

The lengthy essay by "Ann Condi," reproduced on CDN, though interesting, offered readers only an indirect perspective on pliant Westerners in China who acquiesce in the government's management of information. No one is named (including the author), and readers are confined to the writer's observations. Bosco, by contrast, represents an actual, named, currently active CCTV participant and political blogger. Moreover, he has gone beyond acquiescence, having independently taken the initiative in attacking information that is unfavorable to the Chinese regime.

U.S. society is steeped in political and corporate disinformation (see Drowning in Deceit). It is dismaying that even at a university -- even within a department of journalism! -- elementary and obvious principles of free and open discussion are not respected.

I notified Dean Schell of the above article on the same day it was written, and promised to display here any response he wishes to offer, complete and unedited. He has not responded. --UW